Ya Frank, the easiest thing to get a patent on is something that doesn’t work or nobody wants. Perhaps that is the point of Rogers thread. But even viable ideas that don’t identify the need will never succeed. Identifying a need is relatively easy, and the title of the thread and the examples given are good examples of any fool can get a patent. Perhaps that should have been the title. But I still go back forming opinions and whether it’s helpful or harmful to share that opinion.

In the example I sighted, a thousand business professionals couldn’t make the IP viable because the
very aspect that made it “unique” (patentable) also condemned the design to uselessness, aerodynamically speaking.

I mean, the business wizards at Hughes or Bell or Sikorsky can have the sleekest, meanest looking helicopter
that exist, but if it cannot be controlled in flight, it’s nothing more than an expensive ramp ornament.

One of the Sharks said, “You sound like a Wantrepreneur, not an entrepreneur.” I guess, that is the difference between knowing the business of business and a person with a dream.

Frank, if I can sit down for an hour and just talk about the challenges I’ve faced, most wanna be inventors are happy that they kept their day job. I always give examples that the wanna be can check out for themselves. But so much about a product idea’s success is in how it is managed from a business perspective. Take the “non-writable or printable paper”, it will have more properties just from the nature of the product (if it’s real). Perhaps only a specific adhesive will bond to it, perhaps it is completely impervious to water, that it even has the adhesive inherent to the paper and it is activated when exposed to temp of 180 degrees. By incorporating all this into the claims, presenting it properly to the right industries, there could be hundreds or thousands of applications that this mystery paper could have a use for.

I’m working on a new product right now. There is plenty of competition that I’ll have to compete against already on the market. Each of the competitors have established a level of distribution. The new product does not have to displace those products on any shelf. I’ll try and place the product where the end user can see it, use it, and build the brand. There is a method of distribution concieved. A marketing plan that I will not have to invest anything into. Once it is in place it would be very difficult for a competitor to displace it, but very easy to compete if there is no IP to protect it. So for this product, the business management is critical to the successful use of the IP.

If someone that is not going to be privy to the entire business management they really can only form an opinion based on their perspective of the facts and facts are always changing. The inventor MAY only have a tiny bit of the puzzle figured out (or a lot of it). There is just a lot more to it and that is what I try and make the wannabe aware of (along with customers, licensees, partners, and mentors). My perspective of the facts might be screwed up. If I want an informed opinion, I need to share the facts as I see them.

okay, so they are creating “Obstacles to Entry”… Nothing wrong with that. Tom Tom did it to me. It is frustrating but you don’t become King of the hill without knocking somebody down and you don’t stay King without defending that position. Kings don’t share well.

Yeah, mud-slinging. Part of it is “maybe we aren’t going to do it, but we don’t want anybody else doing it either.” Another part is “We don’t want to do it today, but maybe someday we will.” However in the case I cited we were specificaqlly told “We’re not going to do it. But it’s cheaper to patent it anyway.”

Bob,
Is that their version of slinging mud at the wall? Sounds expensive but I guess it guarantees against complacency. It is easy for a large company to cut R&D to reduce overhead. I guess, this way, that company will always be seeking NEW products, which is not a bad strategy.

Chappy!

As an interesting (to me, anyhow) side note ; there are companies that will patent many things they have no intention of ever marketing. As one example, I worked for a large and beauraucratic high-tech firm that had a cross-licensing agreement with another, and a committment to provide x number of patents to the pool every year. There was a penalty for each patent short of x. The company had a large IP department and found it less expensive to crank out patents even if they were never going to market them.

@Scott – I agree, opinions should definitely be based on personal knowledge/experience of/in the given subject matter and
not on conjecture alone.

Should one give a list of references that qualify their opinion then?

Scott, yes the ones I listed above are a little over the top, but they are not far from what I see daily from Inventors. The sad truth is a lot of Inventors throw money at bad ideas or ideas that are in such a crowded market they have little chance of making an impression on the consumer and standing out. They think a patent opens all the doors and will make them money.
Add to that the large chain stores only have X amount of shelf space and will not devote a lot of it to every type of item that is vailable in that niche. Example. Go to Lowe’s and look at the range of hammers they carry. Do they carry a number of hammers, …yes. Do they carry every hammer made?…..No. Why because they don’t have room to make a 40 foot aisle of nothing but hammers. So, you could have the best hammer known to man, but if the buyers at Lowe’s don’t think it is the best hammer or one that the majority of consumers will purchase it will never see the shelf.

Oh, and one other thing. If an inventor goes for the IP and it is granted by the USPTO I will guarantee that at least a dozen if not more “licensees” show up within two weeks of the patent being granted. Each one of them is an expert in the field and believes that your product will be the next big hit. You should not feel any obligation to contact those people, they are the scum of this industry with little or no knowledge of what your product even is until and unless you actually do contact them.

I think the majority of people that do actually invest in the IP, have a vested interest and deserve to here others experience. Just because it is such a infested industry, others can help clear the water a little. Those that don’t have IP, I’ll still share but they are buying the coffee.

There’s an overabundance of ideas that I don’t believe have a chance in the market. But that’s based on my opinion. The examples that Roger threw up are pretty rediculous, and using those examples it would be hard to defend a decision to go after IP. The not so “clear cut” examples are the ones that asking an opinion about, would probably get an uninformed opinion at best. Most people can not offer an informed opinion about a good idea, they simply do not know what constitutes a good idea… Those offering suggestions should try to offer only some of the challenges that they have faced in obtaining IP, licensing, developing, launching, selling, business management etc etc or be quiet. If once a patent is obtained and the entrepenuer makes a couple grand in profit the first year, hell, he’s doing something right. Major corporations spend hundreds of thousands and never sell one item, it gets shelved and chalked up to experience. That couple grand could generate 10K in profit the next year and grow exponentially each following year.

I can share my experience, and if the next inventor makes a decision to move or not on their idea, that decision is based on wether they are up to the challenge, not because of my opinion on the viability of their idea.

See roger been around the block more then we have which means he knows, see this is wisdom. Thats why I sit back, be quiet and LISTEN. speak on roger speak on

After you have established that it is not available to buy and you have done as much homework on patent searches yourself then go for pp if possible professionally this will cost so be shore that you can afford to lose that sort of money if all fails. Find the right partner this is key. Get sales before you make your production mould etc if possible enough to cover the mould etc . This is what i have done more than once.
I also have to add Rodger that i left school with no qualifications what so ever so all i had going for me was honesty and a good old fashion work ethic.

David, that is portion of the journey Inventors forget. Once you get the patent the journey doesn’t stop, now you have to get it to market. Which is a whole other set of hurdles.

97% fail ? sound like real doom and gloom i must be one of the 3% lucky me . Now what’s the chance that i got two granted yes i did lucky me twice yes you need to know that your product will sell and it always a gamble but if it makes you money you must keep protecting it. I have confided in one person that a believe has integrity here that will be nodding their head right now. Not disagreeing with all that you say Rodger.

Try and determine upfront what benefits do you get if you pursue a patent on your idea. Is the return on investment realistic or will it take you 10 years to break even? If you break even at all. Spending $12,000 on a patent and another $10,000 to get a production run of your product so you can start selling them may not be the best investment if you are only profiting $2,000 a year after expenses..

Inventors need to remember a patent is a tool and not a automatic ticket to riches. Don’t pin all your hopes on a patent when you haven’t done any research to see if your product is marketable.

That is unfortunate. They may never accept that conclusion. That is just one of the reasons 97% of patented items never make it to market.

A few weeks ago I got to see a recently granted patent for a revolutionary contra-rotating rotor system design for helicopters.
Where the theory was logical, realistically it was useless because the design didn’t take into account several aerodynamic
principles, the most important of which is HOW rotorblades make it possible for a helicopter to fly/maneuver. I attempted
to explain the rotor mechanics required to achieve flight/control, but the inventor is still convinced it will work as is and it is
infact marketable.

The thing about it is, there is all kinds of reference material available on how rotor systems work, and just briefly checking them
would have revealed the problems. Yes, it was unique and non obvious enough to get patented, but the reason it WAS
unique and non obvious is because past engineers never adopted it, because it doesn’t work.

I received an email today from an Inventor that had their patent issue about a month ago. They are troubled that no company has contacted them wanting to either buy the patent from them or wanting to license the patent. They are getting contacted by all the companies wanting to put their patent on a coffee mug or plaque. They have gotten calls from several of the Invention Submission companies wanting them to sign up for their services.
It all goes back to what I have been saying " A patent does not mean it is marketable, it just means you have a patent"

Thank you Roger for you help.

Why do Inventors wait until they are in debt to ask questions they should have in the very beginning? I am still seeing Inventors wasting money on patents that will NEVER return any of their efforts. Please do your research before you spend your money.

Please make sure you need a patent before jumping in to get one. I received two more requests for help last week from Inventors that have patented products. It is very clear neither product is something you will see in a store any time soon. One has competitors that do the job better. The other will cost more than any consumer would pay to have it. Both spent over $10,000 so far and have not had any company show interest.

Rainer, thank you for the kind words. I hope Inventors find the information useful.

Roger

I been reading alot of your post …very informative.

I just want to say thanks ….so here it is… THANKS !

I have not used patent wizard. Maybe someone here will chime in that has. Chris, I agree it is pointless to get a patent for a product that is not marketable, but Inventors are obviously doing it a lot. I want to make sure Inventors know I am not against patents. Patent are a tool to be used when needed. They are not made to be used in every situation.

Roger, to answer the question: hell, no. My non-patented product is about 75% more successful.

Roger,

Of course its pointless to get one for an idea that is not marketable……………….but do you recommend filing for a provisional patent application using software such as patent wizard?

Wow thank you for the advice Roger!!

Last week I was contacted by three Inventors that have patented ideas. The patents were issued from 6 months ago to three years ago. They all had the same issue in common, their patent involved a product idea no one is going to want. They all have been actively looking for a company to pick it up with no luck. Again I caution Inventors to remember- Patentable does not mean marketable. Do your research before you throw money into a patent.